View Single Post
  #15  
Old 04-27-2019, 07:48 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,836
Default

I understand your point but I think 2013 shot itself in the foot at least once and that didn't help things much. By that I mean the restrictions they put on people for contributions to the development - I seriously considered submitting information but when I saw the demand for proof of military service by submittal of your DD 214 Form (or equivalent) I decided not to do so.
I completely understand that they wanted to weed out the wannabes but for us in Australia, you can't just send military documents to foreign nationals and besides that, Army Reserve members didn't get discharge papers when they finished their service.

Among some potential contributors that approach created a feeling that there was some sort of elitism going on and they decided not to get involved. The timeline/history that 2013 provided deserved some criticism, for example it failed on some points of geography that would have been very easy to check with a simple internet search.
Having said all that, the rules were (and still are) good and a lot of the support material was equally as good.
But 2013 lost a lot of goodwill when the head honcho blamed die-hard fans of T2k for 2013's lack of success - purely military themed rpgs have always been a niche market, I don't recall any that have ever sold as well as T2k except perhaps Palladium's Recon/Advanced Recon game. So any new military rpg was never going to sell in large volume and 2013's release was around the same time as D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder were getting the lion's share of publicity and the hype for D&D 4 was building up.
Reply With Quote